I've been behind on tracking the media's continued mistreatment of Rand Paul, and I'm trying to catch up, so this post will be brief.
In the wake of my last post, a series of other articles came out highlighting the "shushing" incident in particular. This is a highlight from one of them:
Rand Paul defends shushing interview
Sen. Rand Paul on Saturday defended a heated interview in which he shushed a female interviewer, saying he agrees to a lot of interviews and faulting the reporter for interrupting him....
In the interview, Paul scolded Evans for being "argumentative" and chastised her for "mischaracterizing" his positions.
The exchange quickly became news, as critics questioned whether Paul would have treated a male anchor the same way. That combined with his accusations against the media for distorting his comments about vaccinations — served as fodder for pundits and critics to question whether Paul was ready for prime time or too thin-skinned. [hyperlink original]
Notice how the "critics" which "questioned whether Paul would have treated a male anchor the same way" were never named or identified. This is because the author herself is the primary critic, and the exchange only "became news" because her employer decided it should. CNN published this article precisely because it wanted to foment that criticism: to throw that thought out into the reader's mind, and lend it credence as a valid, mainstream, reasonable interpretation of events. Sentences like that one hype up controversy where previously there was little, because controversy is good for business, and especially so if it presents ideological enemies in a negative light.
Imagine the positions were switched: Paul interviewing a female, starting off with same accusatory questions she started off with, and then interrupting to speak over her in the middle of her responses. Wouldn’t this also be seen as him silencing women in a sexist way? of him always having to get his side of the story out, and being socially accustomed to men speaking and women listening? Wouldn't he be criticized in ways Kelly Evans will not be for doing the same thing? And if so, isn’t the behavior of Kelly Evans in that interview quite the opposite of what you’d expect to see if society were as slanted against women as “critics” claim? Make no mistake, society is slanted against women in many ways. But if this interview proves anything, it's that females interviewing men actually get a longer leash to be abusive than is true when it's vice-versa.
Don’t hold your breathe to see Evans’ obnoxiously confrontational tact criticized by any mainstream media outlet – that’d be eating one of their own. In fact, perhaps they can’t even see why what she did was dishonest: after all, they have an ingrained tendency to sympathize with and relate to the interviewer’s point of view because they've all been in that position before. If so, they are behaving in much the same way men behave when their biased and defensive perspective on sexism prevents them from detecting the injustices of patriarchy.
If the political left put forth half the effort they exhort calling out unfair and discriminatory media treatment of women and minorities into the parallel pursuit of illuminating unfair media treatment of libertarians, they wouldn’t need to stretch nearly so far to find examples.